Devi Bhuknoji Kasidoss Subbaraya Devage Garu v. Allamadugu Narayana Reddi

1. It is first argued that the lower Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the lands do not form part of an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act. This objection was not taken in the Court of first instance. The appellant, an inamdar, has treated the lands as part of an “estate” by taking proceedings under the Act and there is certainly no presumption that an inamdar is entitled to both the melvaram and the kudivaram. If there is any presumption in this case, it is that the inamdar is entitled only to the melvaram. We, therefore, disallow this contention.

2. The appellant is a land-holder who was receiving rents from his ryots at a certain rate for his manavari (rain-fed) lands.

3. The tenants constructed wells on their lands and with water from those wells, they raised garden crops, for which the appellant for some years demanded and received rent at a higher rate. The tenants now refuse to pay rent at such enhanced rates. The question is whether the landlord is entitled to claim it.

4. The lower Appellate Court has decided that the landlord is not so entitled under Section 13, clause 3 of the Estates Land Act.

5. The appellant contends this section does not apply and relies upon the judgments in Venkata Perwmal v. Ramudu(1). In those cases, however, it was found that there was a contract between the parties that rent should be paid at the higher rate when land was cultivated with well-water. In the cases before us the appellant alleged that there was a cist rate and when it was reduced and he collected the vasul rate, it was under an agreement that if garden crops were raised with well water he should be paid the cist or taram assessment. This agreement has not been proved. The case, therefore, does not apply.

6. It was then argued that the plaintiff is entitled to the varam rate of rent. But there was no attempt to prove in this case that there is an established varam rate or that the plaintiff is entitled to recover at that rate in the absence of any contract.

7. It is also said that under Sections 27 and 28 of the Madras Estates Land Act it should be presumed that the rent which was paid during the preceding Fasli must be presumed to be the fair rate. The appellant did not contend in the lower Courts that he was entitled to recover the amount as being a fair rent. It has been found by the Courts that the crops were raised with water from the wells constructed at the tenants' expense, and it is not shown why the appellant should get any share of the higher value of the crops raised.

8. Payment for a period of seven years may be evidence of an agreement, but it will not be a contract unless there is any consideration for it and on the facts found, there is no consideration.

9. We dismiss the second appeals with costs.

S.N/R.K

10. Appeals dismissed.